I hope I did not offend anyone by my last post. I realize even though I've been lurking here for three years , I may have overstepped the boundaries for a virtual newbie eplaya burner. After reading the last posts by the great people of eplaya, I became uncomfortable by the UNUSUAL tone and inferences made. It is possble I misunderstood, and need to get a better grasp re; the snark that eplaya is famous for.There are three principles that in my opinion could give the BMorg. the mandate to carry on with the small ticket price reduction for those they decide need a little help to paticipate.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

iconoplastyfervor wrote:Sorry man, none of your arguments make ANY sense and are full of holes. I was using law enforcement as an example (and Trilo was using other companies likewise), not as an invitation to debate that topic. Bringing THAT up is a distraction and disingenuous. Lamps are not essential, and they could be supplied by camps instead of BMORG. You don't need lamps to have Burning Man or meet BLM regs for sanitation. There are many things that are not essential that monies get spent on by BMORG. Prove me wrong.

No holes in the least. This has already been addressed. Scroll up to the part about "discretionary spending". Hell, you even quoted the entire message. I've already laid it out for you that my beef is with paying for other peoples' attendance.

And no, just because there are other non-essentials in the bill doesn't make the LIT any better. "LOL LAMPS ARE NON-ESSENTIAL TOO" is completely irrelevant, because the issues is exclusively with the LIT.

It's not a tax when it doesn't cost you anything! You are ignoring that fundamental premise and continuing on with irrelevant points. Calling it a tax is a tactic some republicans might use (while ignoring potentially much bigger issues that they don't want to deal with) to create anger in those not paying attention. Not all republicans, mind you. Just sayin' it's been done, have references.

Oh spare me the anti-Republican political rhetoric. Yeah, it does cost us. It's priced into the tickets, especially now that all tickets sell out. Last year's expansion of the program was partially paid for, as a justification, by the increased price of the presale tickets as well. It's not the even the price that matters, but the principle of it and also how it gets abused as a second-chance ticket-acquisition mechanism.

trilobyte wrote:Bbadger, so what you're saying is you don't have a problem with there being a Low Income Ticket program or how Burning Man chooses to dole them out. Based on your statement "In years past (< 2012) the LIT didn't matter because the tickets never sold out" it sounds like you're basically in a twist because of scarcity - there aren't enough for everybody and so now you're doing that thing where you suggest excluding a group that does not include yourself.

What I was responding to was the idea that the program is now a tax because the LIT program no longer utilizes spare tickets. Nothing there stated, or even suggested, that I want to exclude some group that doesn't include myself just so I have more opportunities to get a ticket. It's not about that. Maybe for others, but not me.

Hell, I believe eliminating the LIT program would be more inclusive than the current situation. Everybody would acquire their tickets in the same manner, and I don't find it unfair to low-income burners because everybody is capable of saving up their money for a ticket if they want it.

A real problem involving scarcity and the LIT program is that the LIT program is now it is being utilized as a second-chance means to get tickets. If I were in the business of trying to maximize my ability to get tickets I'd probably vote to KEEP the LIT because I could qualify if I chose to utilize it.

I'm not coming down on you as having no say in the matter, I'm saying that none of us participating in this thread (myself included) have any say in the matter. Either in the quantity of tickets offered, the criteria used, the cost they're offered at, or even if there is a program. Sorry if I'm not taking an extreme enough position on the subject for you, but it just doesn't bother me. As I've said previously, while I'd probably make different choices if it were up to me, I'm completely okay with there being a program and the way they choose to run it.

Like I said before, I have no problem with anyone taking a position (or no position) on the issue, strong or indifferent. If you agree, or think I'm way out of line, or just don't even care, so be it.

I do take issue, however, with "it's a waste of time to even discuss it if you can't change it!" type responses. It adds nothing to the conversation, and is rather hypocritical if you've spent any time debating the issue at all.

"The essence of tyranny is not iron law. It is capricious law." -- Christopher Hitchens

trilobyte wrote:I'm curious, of the people complaining about the low income program being some sort of forced tax, do you spend as much time complaining about all the other companies you do business with? Everything from oil companies, fast food joints, grocery stores, clothing manufacturers, and everywhere else have giving programs. They contribute to and support all kinds of groups, and in your eyes they're making you pay the price. O the motherfucking humanity! It must get tiring, that's a lot of grousing.

This has to be the best thing I've read all day! (Proof that Feb. 2013 is my restart to 2013)

Illuminate. Navigate. Celebrate.What would you do if you knew you couldn't fail?

I'm sure I'll incur some level of snark/ridicule for posting about this, but I believe it does help some people. I'll start by saying that I'm a full time graduate student. I do have an income, but it's coming from my education. I am living off a combination of grant money from my university and financial aid from the government, so my income is limited. I cannot work because I will be starting my (unpaid) practicum soon, and it's required for my degree.

Now, I have the money to pay for a full price ticket, but because I can only budget a certain amount for Burning Man as a whole, my leftover budget means that I may not be able to afford certain things. If I can get a half-price ticket so that I can budget more money to ensuring that I am as radically self-reliant and prepared as I can be, then why shouldn't I be able to apply for a low income ticket?

Some of you like to say that "if $___ is the difference between you attending Burning Man or not, then you shouldn't be going." I respect that. I would counter that argument by saying that $190 is not a make-or-break dollar amount for me. I just live on a fixed income. I want to spend the amount of money that I need to prepare myself and make it through Burning Man while following the 10 principles as best I can. This program helps me allocate more money to supplies and transportation. I'm sure there are others in my situation, or have the same sentiment. I think this program helps.

So there's my two cents. Be gentle.

"I think perhaps love thrives on unlikely circumstance and chance : life thrives on these principles, and is life not love? And love not life?"

incubus_pantomime wrote:I'm sure I'll incur some level of snark/ridicule for posting about this, but I believe it does help some people.

There's no question it does help people. It would help anyone who benefited because it's a cheaper ticket (except maybe those people seeking early arrival). The issue is whether it's a worthy cause to support: whether it's a good use of peoples' funds; whether it reinforces the idea of self-reliance; whether it is an enabling program rather than a trip-subsidizer; whether it is easily abused as a loophole; and whether such a program should be a choice, rather than an obligation that comes with the ticket.

Now, I have the money to pay for a full price ticket, but because I can only budget a certain amount for Burning Man as a whole, my leftover budget means that I may not be able to afford certain things. If I can get a half-price ticket so that I can budget more money to ensuring that I am as radically self-reliant and prepared as I can be, then why shouldn't I be able to apply for a low income ticket?

I respect that rationalization. However, realize that it swings both ways: "why should I be funding someone else's ticket, when that could be helping myself be more 'radically self-reliant'?" They're both coming from the same kind of thinking.

Also I must point out that you're not being as "radically self-reliant" as you can be if you're relying on a subsidized ticket to make that possible.

Some of you like to say that "if $___ is the difference between you attending Burning Man or not, then you shouldn't be going." I respect that. I would counter that argument by saying that $190 is not a make-or-break dollar amount for me. I just live on a fixed income. I want to spend the amount of money that I need to prepare myself and make it through Burning Man while following the 10 principles as best I can. This program helps me allocate more money to supplies and transportation. I'm sure there are others in my situation, or have the same sentiment. I think this program helps.

And to that I would say: like all luxuries you treat yourself to, save your money up if you really want it. Lot's (all) of people are in your "situation" as far as trying to save a buck, but this is a luxury--like all luxuries--that should be earned. Radical self-reliance starts at home.

"The essence of tyranny is not iron law. It is capricious law." -- Christopher Hitchens

I appreciate your honesty, Badger, but I respectfully disagree with you. Yes, some people do abuse the system, and it's unfortunate. I do not think that this should be grounds for termination of this program, as it does truly benefit some people who do "earn" it. I really would like to know how you determine who deserves a price break and who doesn't. No negative feelings involved; I'm saying this with honesty and sincerity. I think the program works as well as it can to include those who treat it with respect and (unfortunately) the few who are wrong to abuse it. I will also take the time to state that I do not rely on this program. I simply choose to apply because I feel that I fit the criteria. I could've been rejected, which I fully understood when I applied.

You know, it's really disappointing to see such passive aggressive talk on this forum, and such pessimism. Not once on the playa did I experience the attitude I get here -- any snark I got on the playa felt like it was all in good fun, rather than blatant anger/resentment/elitism. Here, I feel as if certain people wish to wag their fingers at me and tell me that I don't deserve to experience the burn/low income tickets/etc because of my age or my relative virgin burner status. Ah, the internet.

I'm just going to bow out of this whole matter and say that I believe it works, I think I did earn it, and I did not play the system. Deal with it, as some would say. We can just agree to disagree.

"I think perhaps love thrives on unlikely circumstance and chance : life thrives on these principles, and is life not love? And love not life?"

I can really appreciate a homeless person when they are begging on the street for money for beer and drugs. Hey, it's their life, and it certainly isn't the life I would choose to live, but who am I to decide how they spend the money I choose to give them? If it makes their existence, from their perspective, more pleasant, it was money well spent.

JKhttp://www.mudskippercafe.comWhen I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.

incubus_pantomime wrote:You know, it's really disappointing to see such passive aggressive talk on this forum, and such pessimism. Not once on the playa did I experience the attitude I get here --<snip>

As you've discovered, the ePlaya isn't the playa. On the playa people are on vacation, and I think most tend to be in a version of a happy-bubble (even when being snarky), on here people rant & philosophize and politicize to their hearts content - and more than half the time I think the arguments are just to argue.

One thing to keep in mind - while people from the Org do indeed read these forums, and last year even took the outrage about the lottery into consideration in trying to formulate a way forward, it's highly unlikely they're going to listen to a small minority who want to remove a program that the Org itself has found worth keeping, regardless of the "anti" people's reasoning.

From my years on the board before becoming a Mod, I highly recommend avoiding threads that you know are going to piss you off. There will always be people you disagree with, but you might - shockingly - discover that when you meet them on-playa they're actually a nice person. Or you may loath them with a passion, just like any other person you randomly meet in real life...

FWIW, my problem isn't that the program exists.. it's that everyone else that pays full price foots the bill for it. I shouldn't have to pay more so you can save more and help fund your party.. point blank. This isn't some "Republican" attitude like someone else mentioned as in that case, we're talking about social programs which I fully support.

We're not talking about social programs. We're talking about an optional party in the desert.. of which, I shouldn't have to subsidize your lazy ass for. If you can't afford a ticket and all that comes with the trip, then don't go. Simple as that.

Now that BM has found a satisfactory solution to the ticketing, I don't really care what they do or how they spend their money. And the older I get the less judgmental I become on how other's spend their money or choose to live their lives. If allowing someone to save $100 on a ticket can make their life happier, who am I to want to take that away from them?

JKhttp://www.mudskippercafe.comWhen I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.

incubus_pantomime wrote:You know, it's really disappointing to see such passive aggressive talk on this forum, and such pessimism. Not once on the playa did I experience the attitude I get here --<snip>

As you've discovered, the ePlaya isn't the playa. On the playa people are on vacation, and I think most tend to be in a version of a happy-bubble (even when being snarky), on here people rant & philosophize and politicize to their hearts content - and more than half the time I think the arguments are just to argue.

One thing to keep in mind - while people from the Org do indeed read these forums, and last year even took the outrage about the lottery into consideration in trying to formulate a way forward, it's highly unlikely they're going to listen to a small minority who want to remove a program that the Org itself has found worth keeping, regardless of the "anti" people's reasoning.

From my years on the board before becoming a Mod, I highly recommend avoiding threads that you know are going to piss you off. There will always be people you disagree with, but you might - shockingly - discover that when you meet them on-playa they're actually a nice person. Or you may loath them with a passion, just like any other person you randomly meet in real life...

That is a very good recommendation re: avoiding threads that are a personal touchy subject. Why put yourself through the upset, perhaps even ruining an otherwise great day. The whole post would be useful reading for anyone just joining eplaya. Thank you.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."